On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:10:11 +0200 Moin Rahman <b...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2023, at 12:32 AM, Moin Rahman <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Oct 27, 2023, at 11:37 PM, Tatsuki Makino <tatsuki_mak...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Moin Rahman wrote on 2023/10/28 01:50: > >>> But by no means it reduces the build > >>> time of texlive-texmf. Hope everyone enjoys that. :) > >>> > >> > >> There are updates in the current port tree that cause packages rebuilt by > >> glib updates to be rebuilt again :) > >> > >>> [00:01:19] [Dry Run] Deleting texlive-base-20230313_3.pkg: new > >>> dependency: print/ghostscript10 > >>> [00:01:22] [Dry Run] Deleting texlive-texmf-20230313.pkg: missing > >>> dependency: texlive-base-20230313_3 > >>> [00:01:39] [Dry Run] Ports to build: ... print/texlive-base > >>> print/texlive-texmf ... > >> > >> As far as I can see, it seems that it is possible to avoid rebuilding > >> texlive-texmf by manually running poudriere bulk with print/texlive-base. > >> However, something else may cause texlive-texmf package to be removed, so > >> it would be better to proceed gradually from libXdmcp, libxcb or something. > >> > >> I enjoy manual manipulation to minimize the time spent on rebuilding :) > >> > >> Regards. > >> > > > > I believe you do not have the latest tree. I have removed the build time > > dependency to texlive-base. > > > > This is my latest build: > > > > https://pkg.bofh.network/data/latest-per-pkg/texlive-texmf/20230313/124i386-default.log > > > > And there is not call to texlive-base itself. > > > > Kind regards, > > Moin(bofh@ with tex@ hats on) > > > > In contrary to my previous comment I think that somehow poudriere detected > the change that it no longer depends on print/texlive-base and hence rebuilt > the pkg so that it's properly processed in the pkg and removes the dependency > on print/texlive-base. > > So in the previous pkg repo it had a BUILD time dependency on > print/texlive-base but after the latest build it is no longer there. Maybe > there are still some place of improvements in poudriere's change detection > mechanism specially BUILD_DEPENDS. :P > > Kind regards, > Moin(bofh@ with all hats off) And maybe indirect dependencies, too. ;-( Not sure it's already done or not, maybe pkg database should record... *ACTUAL fetch depends *ACTUAL patch depends *ACTUAL build depends *ACTUAL lib depends *ACTUAL run depends *And possibly, ACTUAL test depends regardless it's explicitly specified in ports skeleton (including via uses etc.) or not. For example, for lib depends, If port A depends on port B, and port B depends on port C in each Makefile, If nothing in port A directly links libraries in port C, no need to record port C as dependency of port A. If anything in port A directly links libraries in port C, port C SHALL be recorded as lib depends of port A, even if it is NOT explicitly described as *_DEPENDS in port A's Makefile. These would vary with how OPTIONS are set / how FLAVOURs are set. If this is possible, it would largely help maintainers, with the cost of huge amount of `make package` time. At worst, BUILD_DEPENDS should be recorded in pkg database and some option to retrieve them, like %r and %d. I strongly suspect the lack of this functionality affects mis-behaviour of poudriere on deciding build order and combination. -- Tomoaki AOKI <junch...@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
